Mitchell contradicted himself in that article. He states in his report that "In order to provide Clemens with information about these allegations and to give him an opportunity to respond, I asked him to meet with me; he declined." Sorry Mitchell but that's not the same thing.
Handler what are you arguing? Clemens said he didn't know he was going to be named in the report. Mitchell says he sent two letters out to MLBPA letting them know who would be named and and during what years they used. He then said that anyone wanting more information should meet with him. If Mitchell is correct, Clemens knew he was going to be named and refused to meet with Mitchell. You might as well be arguing that Mitchell should have released all of his information to the named players before the report. I don't see a contradiction.
BTW, I am not ashamed of the fact that i think the Mitchell Report is a farce overall. MLB spent $20 million on this and this was all they came up with? Mitchell had to use tactics that were definitely different to get anything. How many times has anyone seen the Federal Gov't making a witness testify to a report that has no power? Furthermore, when has anyone ever seen police or the FBI giving immunity TO THE DEALER for the name of a USER? Normally, in any investigation, the USER is given immunity to name the DEALER and DISTRIBUTER. That is who they are usually after. This investigation is the total opposite. So I definitely have serious credibility issues with this report and the amount of money paid to obtain something lacking any real substance. Mitchell felt he had to have big names for the money and could not get them. He calls his buddies at the FBI and gets them to help him. Maybe it is 100% legit, but I have to see more proof. Mitchell does not get automatic credibility to me just because he was a senator.
Based on what I've read I think Mitchell alerted of each of the players that they'd be mentioned in the report. He didn't tell them why but gave each of them a chance to meet with him individually to find out why. What I don't understand is why the players were so resistant to meeting with him. Seriously, if I know that a company memo on a volatile topic is about to be released and I'm mentioned by name I'd be lining up outside the office of the author of said memo to find out in what light I was being cast. The only logical reason that I can gather from the players not meeting with Mitchell in advance is that their attempts to deny would be lessened if it was public they had met with Mitchell in advance. Based on Jayson Stark's blog of the Congressional hearings today it seems that Fehr and Selig got off easy. Tejada may be ****** for lying to a Federal Agent and Clemens better pucker up for his meeting with them later. Clemen's did get some advance notice that if he lies to the committee they may pursue perjury charges like it appears they are doing with Tejada.
Hey eflow, you avoided my question, so here it is again... What we now know is that Mitchell claims that he alerted the union about people who would be identified in the report. And we also know that Clemens hired investigators to question McNamee the day before the Mitchell report was released. Given that, do you believe this: "They wouldn't respond to what it was about," Clemens said. "Obviously if I had known what Brian McNamee was saying about me I would have been there." If you believe that, why do you believe that?
Beau, I'll do my best to answer your question. I think it is something closer to what SH wrote. According to the article Mitchell let the MLBPA know which players were going to be named, and the dates they used performance enhancing drugs. Beyond that it doesn't appear he gave them more information. It doesn't look like he told them what drugs it is alleged they used or the form of proof. Clemens appears to be claiming he wouldn't meet with Mitchell because he couldn't get specifics on the allegations. Mitchells was probably holding that information to force the named players into meetings. I don't know why Mitchell should have been forced to give Clemens the specific info without a meeting. It is doubtful Clemens would have met with Mitchell anyway.
man all this smells of soviet show trials and House Un-American Activites type actions, i.e. witchhunts and railroading during showtrials. I trust that crook Mitchell as far as I can throw him, having him look into things is like having Al Capone investigate peeps for tax evasion.
If you read the report (and I have) you will find that it is McCarthyism at its worst. Assumptions upon assumptions without any verification except what someone like Brian M. says he supplied or shot up with. For $20 mil, I think you could and should expect more.
From the 60 Minutes interview: WALLACE Did you know ahead of time what was going be in George Mitchell’s report? CLEMENS I did not. Again, given that Mitchell asked to speak to Clemens, gave dates in question in the notification, and Clemens dispatched two private investigators to speak to McNamee before the Mitchell Report was released, how can you believe that Clemens didn't know what was in the Mitchell Report? I don't know whether or not what McNamee says about Clemens is true (and there is plenty of reason to doubt it), but given these events.... Wow, if you believe the report took Clemens by surprise, then you'd probably believe Clemens if he said he's an alien from Planet K.
I will agree that I do not buy into the fact that Clemens was taken totally by surprise by the Mitchell Report. I do, however, believe that he could have been taken by surprise by what McNamee says in the report. I still do not fault any of the players for not talking to Mitchell. I would not have.
he knew that mitchell is writing a report about player PED use. If mitchell contacts him to tell him he might be mentioned in it wouldnt that be enough to get him to go find out more about it?
I'm actually shocked that anyone could side with the players named in the Mitchell report, absent any additional information. I'm not saying it's an open-and-shut case, but come on. There is no way anyone can look at the evidence which has been revealed to date and still support these players. Could they be innocent of the allegations being levied against them? Sure. Is it likely that they're innocent? No way in hell.
jimmy, Is it that unreasonable to doubt allegations with no proof other than word of mouth? Especially when there is clear evidence again "most" of the players listed? Is it too much to ask for more evidence before destroying their legacy? If they are guilty as charged, it will all come out in the wash.
